Commentary on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Management

March, 2015 - Energy for Life - Book
Reviews

I reviewed three books recently which are closely related to this websites
theme - energy for life. One, Isaac Asimov's "Life and Energy" was first
published in 1962. His timeless and fascinating discussion underlines just
how closely energy and our lives are associated. My review published on
Amazon provides more detail and is repeated
here for readers
convenience. It is too bad there is no Kindle edition.

Readers interested in a more up to date and easily available review of energy
and life might be interested in Vaclav Smil's "Energy in Nature and Society:
General Energetics of Complex Systems". I suppose the fact there are just two
reviews of Smil's book on Amazon attests to low general public interest in
this topic of ultimate importance to present and future human society. A Kindle
edition is available.

Alex Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" published on November 13,
2014, focuses on the role energy from fossil fuels has played in recent human
history. Although he does not explain the role of energy in our lives as
exquisitely as Asimov and Smil, his appreciation of it's importance is
noteworthy and timely. He makes the case for fossil fuel energy very well in the
face of clamoring crowds who claim we should cease its use as an energy source.
My review of the Kindle edition, as published on Amazon is available
here.
(DRP 15/06/09)

I was challenged to read a book by acclaimed Canadian author, Naomi Klein,
this past winter. It is titled "This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus the
Climate". Ms. Klein is an entertaining writer, but is swimming far beyond her
depth on this issue. It does provide some important insight to understanding how
strong belief in an issue can be used to rally political action - no
matter how misguided from a scientific and technical perspective. I
submitted a review of the Kindle edition to Amazon and provide it in full
here as well. Her
ability to impress most of her readers is well illustrated by the vast majority
who give her a 5 out of 5 ranking on the Amazon website. (DRP 15/06/09)

January 18, 2013 - Terra Preta Research in Alberta

There are several letters and articles on this site related to the concept
that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could be processed by nature with human
help and deliberately sequestered in the earth's soil to enhance it's
fertility. This would be accomplished by converting plant material to charcoal
to be mixed into the soil. A potential geo-engineering opportunity to manage
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and improve soil is thereby established.

Innovation Alberta has recently begun to consider the potential merits
of this process. Dr. Anthony Anyia made a
presentation to the Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs (SACPA) in
late 2012. He provides a brief introduction to the concept and describes work
underway. (DRP 13/01/18)

June 3, 2012 - Canada Kyoto
Withdrawal Status Update

Canada’s Environment Minister boldly
announced in December of 2011 that Canada would withdraw from Kyoto. That was a
welcome move, although I thought about 5 years too late.

We didn’t hear much about that in the
media since then and I began to wonder about a month ago, if Canada had
actually proceeded with the formalities. An Internet search of the media and the
Environment Canada website, revealed no information, so I asked Environment
Canada through pages allegedly designed for feedback to citizens about the
status. I’ve had no response to date.

Over the past week we’ve had some
attention to the United Nations here in Lethbridge. That reminded me the UN has
been quite transparent with respect to posting documentation by the UN and from
other countries related to climate change. Sure enough, some searching on the
UNFCCC website quickly revealed a
receipt of sorts to acknowledge Canada’s request to withdraw. The effective
date stated is 2012/12/15. Now a search on the Environment Canada website brings
up
documents (Posted May 28, 2012) that indicate Canada has withdrawn and is
posting the Kyoto plan as still required for 2012 till December 15. The plan
indicates Canada will then move forward with the relaxed targets of the
Copenhagen Accord.

The plan should be of great interest to
Albertans who now depend on coal. It includes implications of onerous
requirements to phase out traditional coal fired electricity and to impose
additional requirements on the oil and gas industry. The final regulations for
coal fired electricity will be published soon according to the
documentation. I could not find the draft regulations, but this
assessment of costs provides an indication. “The
proposed Regulations would apply a performance standard to coal-fired
electricity generation units. This standard would be set at the emissions
intensity level with consideration of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
technology — a high-efficiency type of natural gas generation — and be fixed at
375 tonnes of CO2/GWh.”
Since older coal plants release 1000 to 1100 tonnes of Co2/GWh this
is a tough standard indeed. The cost estimate of $2.14/ month for Albertans
noted in the assessment linked above seems, offhand, to be exceedingly
optimistic. From my
admittedly somewhat sketchy knowledge of projected costs of carbon sequestration
and storage, it seems to me there is huge potential for escalation of
electricity prices from coal though. The recent abandonment of Alberta's Keephills
carbon sequestration project by its proponents, despite $1.4 billion of
subsides, provides fuel for my expectation. (DRP 12/06/03)

July 17, 2010 - Wildrose Alliance on energy and
electricity

In March of 2010, I was shocked to find the Wildrose Alliance
caucus endorsing a Pembina Institute evaluation of in situ oil sands operations technology on the same day that the
Pembina report was issued (March 17).
I wrote a
letter to Danielle Smith on July 17 expressing my concern. She responded
with a lengthy
tome
which was essentially a repeat of the news release. That compounded my qualms re
Wildrose Alliance policy.

More recently Ms. Smith's position on energy is revealed in a Peace River
Record Gazette article of July 27, 2011, partially quoted below.

"Speaking of nuclear power, Smith says that after
conversing with Bruce Power, she does not foresee nuclear power coming to
Alberta. According to Smith, Bruce Power needed a guarantee for 30 years of
government subsidy at $0.09 - $0.11 per kilowatt hour with a guarantee of cost
escalation in the event of unforeseen costs.

"That's just not competitive," says Smith, "I just think that if your proposal
requires a subsidy from the government, then you're probably in the wrong
business. We are not the kind of party that would support direct subsidies for
individual firms, if they can't put forward a business plan that actually makes
sense in this market environment then it's not going to happen."

So, if not nuclear power, then what is the future of energy in Alberta?

"I think that we are on the cusp of some major change in the way electricity is
generated," Smith says, "In the environment we have now, we have huge coal
resources, huge natural gas resources, we've got hydro resources and geothermal
resources, and we're seeing an increase in solar and wind power."

The current government has recently put $16 billion toward installing
electricity transmission lines all over the province. Her and the Wildrose
Alliance would like to use more micro-generation, which is an
environmentally-friendly way to generate electricity for your own house or
business, local generation, natural gas and renewable resources.

"I think this is the way Albertans want to go. They want to be able to produce
electricity in a way that has less impact on the environment. It's up to the
government to be able to enable those sort of things rather than to be pursuing
some of the failed strategies of the past.

There is also a future for green energy in Alberta, Smith believes. It has
already taken root in north-western Alberta in some pulp mills, which use
biomass technology to turn the pulp waste into energy. Some firms have even
started producing more energy than they need, not to mention wind energy growing
in popularity in southern Alberta as well as geothermal and solar power.

The Wild Rose Alliance, unfortunately, is not alone with its limited
understanding of our electricity system. Designed back in the 1990's with good
intentions to encourage competitive electricity production, it seems to be
producing some distorted results. Ms. Smith's off the cuff rejection of
relatively inexpensive nuclear electricity is one example. The building of an
extremely expensive over-sized transmission system to support the production of
wind power in southern Alberta is
another. Perhaps it is time to undertake an extensive, engineering,
economic, and environmental review to compare actual performance versus design
intent. Transmission line expansion alone is costing tens of billions of
dollars. Surely a review costing a few tens of million would be worthwhile to
establish a basis for citizens and politicians to better understand the system.
With that understanding we can better modify policy to ensure Albertans will be
able to continue reaping the benefits of minimal cost electricity. (DRP 11/08/23)

May 2-3 Tour of Idaho National Laboratory

The Canadian Nuclear
Society CNS sponsored a tour to Idaho National Laboratory (INL) which was
initiated by Jason Donev from U of C and Bob Cherry of INL. There were twenty
five participants, mostly CNS student members from University of Calgary, but
including Laurence Hoye, Shaun Ward and Duane Pendergast from Lethbridge. INL
organized a most extensive and informative tour of some of their facilities.
Participants were impressed with the broad scope of energy related research and
development undertaken since the 1950’s and learned a great deal about the
activities undertaken at the facility.

Participants had long been aware of the lab, but
didn’t appreciate the extent of its nuclear research and development
accomplishments till the trip brought it home. INL went overboard to put on a
great educational tour providing on site transportation, three tour guides
and several presentations from staff. The site is 850 square miles and quite a
lot of on site travel was involved. Twenty – five of us, mostly U of C physics
students, participated on May 2-3.

Highlights included;

The visit to the EBR-1 experimental breeder reactor which
produced some electricity in 1951 and was the first reactor to do so - 60 years
ago today. Two experimental aircraft nuclear power plants are displayed at the
site too. This site is open to the public as a registered national landmark.
Another experimental breeder reactor (EBR – 2) was run for
many years further proving principles of breeder reactors. It was shut down in
1994 by Congress according to our guide and will be dismantled beginning next
year. Laurence Hoye noted from his internet review that over 50 reactors of
various types have been built and or tested at INL.

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) facility was also
impressive as were the materials and fuels complex. Both of these appear well
utilized.

We also visited labs where INL is studying potential
interfaces between nuclear energy, fossil fuels and biomass energy sources. This
too was illuminating as it illustrated means of developing synergies and
integration between nuclear energy and other energy technologies.

The tour provided an excellent overview of research and
development activities related to the utilization of nuclear energy. INL
maintains a
website
for those interested in the rich role the laboratory has played in the
development of nuclear energy. (DRP 11/11/20)

Charitable organizations abound which decry human use of energy. Nuclear
energy is castigated by many.

H. Douglas Lightfoot has established an institute whose mission is "To
generate awareness of today's global energy challenges and to advance a workable
and sustainable plan that would solve the universally growing needs."
The Institute's home
page shows deep understanding of the role of energy in society and the
part nuclear energy can play in providing the basic element - energy - needed to
support humanity.

Mr. Lightfoot has established charitable status for the Institute. Donations
to it are thus eligible for tax deduction in Canada. At last we have a
charitable organization that understands the importance of human use of energy
and the role of nuclear energy. Please visit the Institute and take advantage of
this opportunity to lower your taxes and
support a
worthy energy cause. (DRP 10/11/05)

June 30 2008 - The National Climate Change Process and Canada's nuclear
renaissance

Toward the end of the previous century, I was involved with the National
Climate Change Process on behalf of the Canadian nuclear industry. The "Process"
had been established in 1997 to consider how Canada might meet the
obligation arising from signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. Very extensive studies
were established. Computer models of the economy were established to evaluate
the best way to reduce emissions. Input data was established by the committees
(Tables) assigned to each economic sector. Prices on CO2 emissions
were estimated and set parametrically ($10/tonne and $50/tonne). Surprisingly,
the official results indicated nuclear energy would not play a role even going
beyond the Kyoto period (2008 to 2012) to 2020. Close examination of the results
indicated the committees had set the input data very pessimistically with
respect to construction times and other factors. The nuclear industry, in
consultation with those in charge of the modeling, repeated the modeling with
more realistic input and lower cost reactors based on what is now known as the
Advanced CANDU Reactor. The model then predicted that the the least cost route
to GHG emission reduction in Canada would be to build and/or refurbish nuclear
reactors. The number of 665 MWe plants predicted were seven for Alberta, two for
Saskatchewan, twelve for Ontario and three for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The results were presented to the Integrative Group of the
"Process" on March 15, 2001. They were not taken very seriously. The results are
no longer available to the public via government or Canadian Nuclear Association
websites. They are posted
here.

Let's move forward to 2008. The National Climate Change Process has been
forgotten. The results of the work it completed have been
purged
from government websites. No progress has been made in Canada toward meeting the
Kyoto Protocol - and that's a
good
thing. No policy incentives have been implemented to encourage the
development of nuclear energy as a means of decreasing GHG emissions. Still, it
seems the nuclear industry has endured and the predictions of the modeling
undertaken eight years ago may come true. New nuclear plants for Alberta,
Ontario and Saskatchewan are "on the drawing board". Extensive
refurbishment of nuclear reactors are completed or underway in Ontario and New
Brunswick. Is it possible the need for energy has trumped concern about GHG
emissions to implement a means of energy production that actually reduces
them? The world works in strange ways. (DRP 08/07/01)

June 12 2008 - Renaissance: Three Mile Island and the nuclear industry

The nuclear industry is undergoing a renaissance of late - driven by concerns
over future energy supply and the possibility greenhouse gas emissions might
need to be controlled. The anti-nuclear industry is also resurging.

I've stated
elsewhere
on this website that; "The safety systems at Three Mile Island (TMI)
worked well enough that there was no identifiable damage to the health of any
person in the plant or the public." I've also had a
"letter to the editor" exchange with Lethbridge resident Joan Wierzba. She
moved to Lethbridge, Alberta from New York city circa 1981 - just a couple of
years after the Three Mile Island Accident. Ms. Wierzba kindly provided me
with copies of two articles from the "The Village Voice", via the Lethbridge Herald,
to support her letters indicating that radioactive releases from TMI had resulted in
"misshapen monster radioactive plants growing from contaminated soils". I thank
Ms. Wierzba for these hard to find articles. They've led me to social
aspects of the TMI accident, that as an engineer studying containment aspects of
the event, I had not been involved with. My evaluation of the articles in the context of other
information is detailed
here for readers who have missed or forgotten about the TMI accident. My statement above that there was "no identifiable damage to the
health of any person in the plant or the public" is solidly consistent with the
evidence, and conclusions of responsible authorities. In addition it seems
stories of living plants damaged by radiation from TMI are not supported by evidence.

December 25, 2007 - Bali ballyhoo

I've been following the climate change issue for twenty years now. As can be
seen from many earlier posts I started out with considerable enthusiasm for the
topic. I was keen to try to understand the science behind it. I could see that
the nuclear industry I worked in might have an even stronger case for it's
minimal impact on the environment.

Somehow I just could not get very interested in the latest annual meeting of
the UNFCCC. We couldn't get away from the tired faces of the organizers on TV
trying to herd the climate cats by the thousands into some kind of consensus.
Cheerful looking climate change action advocates with dancing protests seemed to
be having a lot of fun, in contrast to the dire warnings they are usually
regaling us with. Reporters generated many stories. Our own Minister Baird
talked up a strong case for getting the developing countries involved. Then we
heard he capitulated by agreeing to some new limits proposed by the IPCC panel.
Is that the fourth or fifth set of emission reduction targets that have been
established by the UN over the past twenty years? Examination of the records of
the meeting suggests the new target for discussion is so vaguely referred to
that most anyone could have been tricked into agreeing. I'm taking the whole
thing with pinch of salt. Here's a
link to the
official results for your bemusement and amusement. At least the results
are still made public, which seems more than we can expect from the Canadian
government these days. (DRP 07/12/21)

May 25, 2007 - Reinventing Terra
Preta

Several years ago I began to wonder if there might be some way to use
nuclear energy to develop a sink for carbon dioxide rather than to just consider
it as a low emission source of energy. It turns out there may be such a
possibility linked with energy use in general and the carbon stored in
productive soils. A major potential advantage of this means of carbon dioxide
management is the side, or co-benefit, of soil improvement. It may turn out that carbon dioxide,
after all our concern, is not a significant driver of harmful climate change. The possibility
that the world's soil resources could be expanded and enhanced through human use
of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels could be of far greater significance in the
long run. Recognition of the concept is growing. Discussion of reinvention and
links
to a fascinating new discussion list and website are provided
here.
(DRP 07/05/25)

October 1, 2006 - Access to Canada's
climate change plans

A
letter on this website laments recently restricted access to two
Canadian government websites devoted to climate change policy. There is much
anticipation of the new governments promised "made in Canada" plan which is
expected to indicate how the commitment of the previous government to the Kyoto
Protocol will be accommodated. Since the two plans of the previous
government were on the closed websites, they are no longer easily available.
Access to these plans is provided
here for the
sake of those who wish to make comparisons. (DRP 06/10/02)

September 26, 2006 - Carbon sinks in northern Alberta

There are several articles, letters and papers on this site which are
intended to raise awareness of the possible role of simple charcoal in the
building of rich soil, while creating a carbon sink from atmospheric carbon
dioxide. An introduction to the concept is
provided further down this page dated April 4, 2004. Recognition of the
potential is building very slowly. A recent "News Feature" in Nature
Magazine might help. Emma Marris's article, "Putting the carbon back: Black is
the new green", August 10, 2006, provides a discussion. She writes about the
discovery of Terra Preta soil found in the Amazon basin over a hundred years ago
and links it to recent initiatives to take the process into consideration as a
means of removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and storing the
carbon component in the soil.

My wife and I recently drove the length of Alberta on a trip to Yellowknife
in the Canada's Northwest Territories. We drove through stands of
forests for hundreds of kilometers, with tiny settlements and gas stations about
two hundred kilometers apart. We crossed several rivers, each dwarfing those of
southern Alberta. The extent of undeveloped land and water resources there is
impressive. The long drive of some 2100 kilometers one way, provided lots of
opportunity for reflection. My thoughts quite often turn to the
consequences of climate change and techniques to manage greenhouse gases.

Expanding human population will certainly increase pressure to develop these northern
lands for agriculture. Indeed, some tracts of land which had just been cleared
of forest cover were evident. The "brush piles" waiting to be burned reminded me
of the land clearing activities of my youth. The wood in those piles
represents several decades of carbon dioxide absorption from the atmosphere.
Burning them completely would simply release the stored carbon back to the atmosphere as carbon
dioxide, damaging and depleting some soil carbon at the same time.

What a great opportunity to establish a long term investigation of Terra
Preta soils. It seems it would be relatively easy to utilize even primitive
forms of charcoal production to turn much of the stored carbon into a soil carbon
sink. Long term comparative studies could be undertaken to evaluate the
effectiveness of the charcoal as a carbon sink and it's possible role in
establishing fertile soil and favorable growing conditions. The last hundred
years of agricultural research and development in Alberta has provided
great advances in food production and soil protection. I wonder what the next
hundred years will bring. The Nature
article noted above is (no longer) freely available online. (DRP 06/09/26)(DRP 06/12/31)

September 25, 2006 - Canada's energy exports

Graham Campbell, Director General of the Office of Energy Research and
Development within Natural Resources Canada, spoke to the closing plenary
session of the Engineering Institute of Canada Climate change
conference in May
of 2006. His talk was titled; Energy Science and Technology Strategy. He
presented an intriguing information rich overhead showing energy data for Canada.
It quantifies energy from all major sources from production through
processing to products, use and waste energy. It is presented
here with permission.

Here in Alberta, and in Canada's press, we are focused on energy
exports related to oil, natural gas and coal. These total 9.34 exajoules. Not so
well known is the significance of our uranium exports. The exported energy
derived from uranium is 7.61 exajoules, almost equal to the other three
combined. NRCan staff have confirmed that the energy yield from uranium is
calculated on the basis of once through use in CANDU reactors. The ultimate
total energy that could be derived from our exported uranium, based on the
development and use of more efficient systems could be on the order of 100 times
that. More details are provided in a
paper posted on this site.

This observation begs some questions. What happens to "depleted", but
"fertile" uranium taken from our exports during the enrichment process in other
countries? Who owns the depleted uranium? Who owns the unused uranium and other
fissile materials in spent fuel from reactors which use our uranium? Is Canada
blatantly squandering a valuable future resource for minor short term gain with
her uranium exports? (DRP 06/09/25)

July 17, 2006 - Environmental
organizations mixed up over oil and water

There is much discussion these days about providing "green" climate
friendly fuels for our cars and trucks. Part of the rationale is that the carbon dioxide
from burning recently grown plants will be reabsorbed by new growth.

Promoters of this concept never point out that plants do not
distinguish between the carbon dioxide from recently grown plants or those which
were turned into oil and natural gas eons ago by Mother Nature. Nor do they pay
any attention to the possibility that land, soil, fertilizer, and water
supplies are already somewhat stretched to produce food for the top predator -
humans. What will happen to the cost
of food supplies if we implement policy to feed the voracious appetite of our
transportation system? Our government seems poised to do just that, with a
recent pledge to "merge
environmental goals with those of agriculture by requiring an average of 5
percent renewable fuel content in Canadian fuel by 2010".

The governments commitment, if implemented, will actually not have much
effect on emissions from transport. Carbon dioxide will still be be pumped
from our cars exhaust pipes. There is a real question as to whether our
agricultural system can generate sufficient regrowth to sustain the assumption
that new plant growth will be able to compensate for burning bio-fuels without
major additional energy input.

Computare has raised questions on the use of food resources for fuel
before. Environmental organizations, perhaps aided by our agriculture
industry, may be pushing our government into prematurely implementing policy
which will turn out to be a major first misstep. It is time to begin questioning
this policy on the grounds of sustainability and environmental impact of
all kinds.

A short
report, prepared by Computare, investigates water use to produce oil
from canola seed here in southern Alberta in comparison with water used to
produce tar sands oil. It turns out that oil production by our local farmers
requires thousands of times more water than production of oil from the tar sands. (DRP
06/07/17)

January 7, 2005 - "E-Dialogue"
Forum on
Canadian Energy Futures

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) engaged Royal Roads
University to conduct "e-dialogues" with the public. My note of December 12,
2005 below leads to Computare's input to the NWMO process.

Many of the NWMO "facilitated" discussions, questionnaires
and and polls, with the public on spent nuclear fuel management seemed to provide excessive
direction to participants. The net result was not too subtle warping of "Canadian
values" and opinions to suit the "values" and pre-beliefs of interviewers and
facilitators. (We are in the
midst of a federal election right now and I'm really getting very sick of hearing the
"Canadian values" buzz phrase.)

I found the more candid input from participants in the Internet
"e-dialogues" undertaken by Royal Roads to be refreshing. Professor Ann Dale
lead those and is undertaking more "e-dialogues. One of these provides an
online forum to discuss future energy strategy and policy. The main theme is
that fossil fuel use may be curtailed due to
shortages or managed use of fossil fuels due to greenhouse gas considerations.
The "e-dialogue" considers where society will get the energy needed for
sustainability. Computare readers might be interested in participating. More
information and links to the forum are provided
here.
(DRP 06/01/08)

December 12, 2005 - NWMO Choosing a Way Forward

Three years ago Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) set out
to "develop collaboratively with Canadians a management approach for the
long-term care of Canada's nuclear fuel". The final study report, "Choosing a
way Forward" was submitted to the Minister, Natural Resources Canada, in
November. It was completed right on schedule with no delays as the process
unfolded. Remarkable.

In view of the great importance of the disposition of spent nuclear fuel to
future energy supply, Computare undertook to review aspects of the
process and interim and and final reports. NWMO made good use of the
Internet to solicit much of it's input and to display discussion. In addition
input from many groups of people involved in person on particular
aspects of the study is provided. This unique collection of information is
available at the NWMO website in a well
organized and accessible way. Computare's submissions are posted there in
context and are also posted
here
with some additional background to put Computare's comments in context with
climate change and greenhouse gas management.

Overall, it seems NWMO has established a good position from which it can go
forward with the management of spent nuclear fuel. The "adaptive
management" approach taken provides a reasonable basis to evolve toward managing
spent nuclear fuel in a way consistent with needs for energy which may develop
over the coming decades. Computare wishes NWMO success with its stewardship of
this potentially major emerging energy resource. (DRP 05/12/12)

June 24, 2004 - Energy & Agricultural Carbon Utilization Symposium

An earlier story on this page (April 04, 2004 below) leads
into a discussion of the potential use of charcoal as a soil amendment and
carbon sink. I provide a summary of a fascinating symposium on this concept
here. I’m still awaiting a copy of the proceedings and will
prepare a more thorough review of the scientific and engineering basis for this
emerging initiative. (DRP 04/06/24)

My brother and I were raised on a frontier farm in Alberta's bush land during
the 40's and early 50's. We had no running water, sewer, natural gas,
electricity, television, telephone, newspapers and other conveniences of
the modern world at the time. Our major contact with the rest of the world was
through the local one room school, occasionally with our neighbors, and through
old books and magazines discarded by others and bought at local auctions by our
grandfather. Our parents did make a major financial sacrifice to buy and
operate a battery powered tube radio so they could follow events of World War
II.

Some might consider that a depressingly sterile environment. It did imbue in
us an interest in our surroundings and a degree of ingenuity in our play activities. Some
of those activities involved fire. I recall we heard about the development of
nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds. We decided we would try to simulate a
mushroom cloud. We put a substantial amount of gasoline in a closed tin and put
it on a pile of brush far from the house. Our goal was to burn the brush,
heating the can to pressurize it till it burst. We thought that might mix the
gasoline suddenly with the air needed to create an explosion. We lit the pile on
fire and retreated to a safe distance to observe. Indeed, we were right. We got
a nice little black mushroom cloud which drifted away with the breeze.
There was a side effect. The explosion scattered the burning brush and started a
fire which quickly spread over much of the quarter section.
Our father was only a little piqued with our independent initiative. He
had planned to burn the brush off a few days later that spring when it would be
drier. Little harm done.

Our father had built a simple metal heating forge in a workshop made of
wooden slabs left over from lumber production at his small sawmill. That was a
great plaything. We spent hours there. We melted Babbitt metal from old
bearing assemblies and poured it into moulds. We hammered screwdrivers, chisels
and knives from white hot scrap steel rods and quenched them in water to harden
them. We built toy brush cutters to mow down small trees.

Usually we used coal or wood for forge fuel. We decided to make some
charcoal. I can't recall where we got the incentive for this
endeavor. We went back to the mushroom cloud technique. We filled a big cream
can with sticks of wood, punched some holes in the top, put it on a brush pile
and burned the brush. As burning progressed, we first saw smoke (likely water
vapor) which later turned to flames gushing from the holes in the can. When the
fire burned out, and we opened the can, we recovered perfectly formed charcoal
replicas of the sticks which went in. It turns out, that while our
environment may have been rather sterile, it did give us some basic appreciation
of fire, land use, land use change and forestry activities.

Some recent discoveries and development related to the potential use of
charcoal in agriculture as a carbon sink and soil amendment are almost as
exciting as that mini-mushroom cloud and can full of charcoal. Researchers are
speculating that humans may have accidentally and/or deliberately modified soils
through the use of charcoal hundreds of years ago. It seems these soils are
highly productive and may retain carbon for a very long time. This raises
the possibility humans could modify their agriculture and forestry practice,
with the benefit of modern science and engineering technology, to create
enduring carbon sinks while enhancing the soil we have abused in the past.
More.
(DRP 04/04/04)

March 5, 2004 - Energy, Technology and Climate: Running Out of
Gas

I recently encountered a very readable essay by Dr. David Goodstein. He is
Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech. He nicely
explains the relationship between climate, energy and fossil fuels in a manner
pertinent to Computare's mission. His
essay is posted at
his website. (DRP 04/03/05) I've subsequently read Dr. Goodstein's related
book; "Running out of Gas". It is an excellent summary (only 140 small
pages) of our recent reliance on fossil fuels and the benefits we've derived
from them. He explains the history of human use of energy from a scientific
basis. He clarifies the reasoning behind theories that humans will soon use up
earths oil. He believes we will reach the half way point of oil use within the
decade and begin to feel the effects of shortages. His discussion of the
climate change issue is modest once past the explanation of radiant
heating of the atmosphere. The real scientific challenges surrounding
climate change and means to manage greenhouse gas emissions are mostly ignored.
Overall, the book is easy and quick to read. I recommend it to those
seeking to really appreciate our dependence on oil and the short time it
will be abundantly and cheaply available to us. (DRP 04/03/30)

February 3 , 2004 - Our Federal Government is
Listening

Yesterday's "Speech from the Throne" includes a section on sustainable
development. It discusses our governments position on climate change and the
Kyoto protocol. The statement "go beyond Kyoto" in the context of highlighted
phrases from the
speech can be taken at least three ways. Does it mean we will be
doing good things for the environment in addition to our Kyoto climate change
initiative? Does it mean we will be reducing our emissions to even less than
called for by Kyoto over the 2008 to 2012 commitment period? Does it mean we
will go beyond the Kyoto commitment period to develop, over the long term,
the technology needed to manage greenhouse gases?

I choose to believe the intent is to re-evaluate the short term Kyoto goal to reduce
emissions to 6% below 1990 levels over the commitment period from 2008 to 2012
and focus on the longer term. This will allow time for the development of
technology and infrastructure needed to manage greenhouse gas emissions over decades to come
while continuing to monitor for signs the climate is being affected. Energy technology needed to sustain our society will be a
very useful focus of
development. Consideration and testing of technology to manage greenhouse gas emissions
seems a prudent precaution. It seems our federal government is listening to voices of
reason
on climate change. (DRP 04/02/03)

January 25, 2004 - Climate Change, Energy and
Agriculture

Human use of fossil fuels and energy during the past hundred years is popularly known as the
root cause of climate change. The so-called developed world is most often
cited as the responsible agent. Primary blame is often assigned to countries such as Canada and the United States which are deemed to
be "energy hogs". Little thought is given to the benefits of energy use which we
all enjoy. Little credit is given to the science and technology which has
developed modern energy sources for the benefit of all.

A recent paper in the journal "Climatic Change" suggests that human
induced climate change was initiated with the development of
agriculture, thousands of years before use of fossil fuels and extensive
agricultural development in North America. This aspect of climate change has been begging
for some thought and study. Computare's introduction to the paper is provided
here.
(DRP 04/01/26)

Update - Professor Ruddiman has just published another paper on this topic in
Scientific American. A brief review is provided
here. (DRP 05/03/28)